Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater
Breakdown · MTL at BUF

Sabres hold off the Canadiens

The verdict · coin flip

The Sabres won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

MTL 3 · BUF 5
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:54 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

The Canadiens dominated the dangerous areas—six high-danger chances to Buffalo's two—but lost 5–3. The underlying metrics called the game close to even: expected goals finished 2.99–3.23, a slight Montreal edge. The Sabres' conversion rate turned that into a decisive win.

Buffalo's finishing was elite. The Sabres overperformed their expected goals by 2.01 while generating just 0.053 expected goals per shot compared to Montreal's 0.075—lower volume, higher conversion. Montreal crashed the net for four rebound chances (converting two) and generated superior looks, but the Sabres struck with lethal efficiency on the rush, scoring five goals from twenty-six rush chances.

Goaltending diverged sharply. J. Fowler (MTL) surrendered 1.0 goals more than expected on his workload—a weak performance. C. Ellis (BUF) posted a 0.870 save percentage and controlled the game when it mattered.

Special teams tilted toward Buffalo. The Sabres power play converted twice on ten shots (0.56 xG). Montreal matched the goal total—2 PPG on 6 PP shots (0.63 xG)—but trailed and couldn't recover. The turning point came on a Tage Thompson wrist shot from the high slot at 18:20 of the third, cementing Buffalo's control.

Buffalo outshot Montreal 27–23 on goal (54 percent of attempts) but that doesn't explain the margin. The Canadiens created the better chances; the Sabres finished theirs.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 15
MTL
3
BUF
5

Sabres hold off the Canadiens

Chances 3.2 – 3.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Sabres took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
MTL
3.23
BUF
2.99
52% of the chances48%

The board read MTL 3, BUF 5. The chances read MTL 3.2, BUF 3.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
BUF
+2.0
goals above expected
BUF2.99 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
MTL3.23 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Sabres scored 2.0 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 03:11MTLC. Caufield1–0
  2. P1 04:05BUFT. ThompsonPP1–1
  3. P1 10:30BUFJ. DoanPP1–2
  4. P1 14:20MTLI. DemidovPP2–2
  5. P2 03:05MTLN. SuzukiPP3–2
  6. P2 08:55BUFA. Tuch3–3
  7. P3 05:12BUFT. Thompson3–4
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MTL
36 shots
3
Final
75 shots
BUF
39 shots
5
MTL attackBUF attack
MTL BUF Goal
36
shots · 3 in
39
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MTLBUF
2 / 6
1.48 xG
High danger
1 / 2
0.96 xG
1 / 14
1.37 xG
Medium
4 / 17
1.68 xG
0 / 23
0.38 xG
Low
0 / 38
0.35 xG

High-danger looks: MTL 2 of 6, BUF 1 of 2.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
C
C. Ellis
+0.2
BUF · 20/23
D-
J. Fowler
−1.0
MTL · 22/26
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Sabres hold off the Canadiens

A model, not a newsroom. Every number on these frames comes from the NHL's play-by-play and our own models. Nothing was watched, guessed or heard from anyone.

Read the full breakdown
backcheckreport.com
01 / 08 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 7–12
  1. 03:11MTLC. Caufield(N. Dobson)1–0
  2. 04:05BUFT. Thompsonpower play(N. Ostlund, J. Zucker)1–1
  3. 10:30BUFJ. Doanpower play(T. Thompson, N. Ostlund)1–2
  4. 14:20MTLI. Demidovpower play(L. Hutson, N. Suzuki)2–2
2ndshots 8–10
  1. 03:05MTLN. Suzukipower play(L. Hutson, C. Caufield)3–2
  2. 08:55BUFA. Tuch(T. Thompson, R. Dahlin)3–3
3rdshots 8–5
  1. 05:12BUFT. Thompson(J. Doan)3–4
  2. 18:20BUFT. Thompsonempty net(Z. Benson)3–5

score reads MTL–BUF

Source · NHL play-by-play (api-web.nhle.com)
Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.99
BUF chances
Goals their shots were worth
+2.0
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.018
BUF puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
57.0%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.23Expected goals2.99
MTL 52% of the chance quality
23Shots on goal27
6High-danger chances2
43All attempts (Corsi)57
Adjusted for score: MTL 44% · BUF 56%
Faceoffs · BUF won53%off42%neu32%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
MTL2 / 6 · 1.48 xG
BUF1 / 2 · 0.96 xG
Medium dangermid-range
MTL1 / 14 · 1.37 xG
BUF4 / 17 · 1.68 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
MTL0 / 23 · 0.38 xG
BUF0 / 38 · 0.35 xG

BUF went 4-for-17 from medium danger on 1.68 expected goals — 2.3 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play
The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
MTL
3 G · 3.23 xG · -0.2
BUF
5 G · 2.99 xG · +2.0
0123456

MTL finished -0.2 against expected, BUF +2.0.

Source · Backcheck xG model
Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
MTL
SNAP1/23
SLAP1/4
TIP IN0/5
WRIST1/2
BACKHAND0/2
OTHER0/7
BUF
SNAP3/28
SLAP0/4
TIP IN0/3
WRIST2/2
BACKHAND0/2
OTHER0/18
MTL
BUF
Off the rush
1 G on 25
2.17 xG
5 G on 26
2.69 xG
Off rebounds
2 G on 4
0.88 xG
0 G on 1
0.01 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: MTL went 1-for-23, BUF 3-for-28. BUF scored 5 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
New to these numbers?

Two things happened in this game: who created the better chances, and who put the puck in the net. They are not the same thing, and this page separates them on purpose.

The one to watch is expected goals— the best single read on who deserved to win. When it disagrees with the scoreboard, that disagreement is usually the story. Nothing here is a projection; every figure is computed from this game's play-by-play. Full glossary →

xG
Expected goals. Every shot scored by how often that exact look goes in. 2.5 xG means the chances were worth about two and a half goals.
HD
High-danger chances — shots from the slot and the crease, where shots actually become goals.
Corsi
Every shot attempt, including the ones that missed or got blocked. A rough read on who had the puck.
Adj.
Score-adjusted. Teams that trail shoot more and teams that lead sit back, so this corrects the attempt count for the scoreboard.
GSAx
Goals saved above expected. A positive number means the goalie stopped more than an average goalie would have on those shots.
PDO
Shooting % plus save % — a luck gauge. It sits near 1.000 over a season, so a game far from it usually means the bounces decided it.
Shot by shot

In the net

Graded on goals saved above expected
J. Fowler
MTL · 22/26 · .846
-1.0
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/21.0-0.0
Medium4/171.7-2.3
Low0/380.3+0.3

A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

C. Ellis
BUF · 20/23 · .870
+0.2
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/61.5-0.5
Medium1/141.4+0.4
Low0/230.4+0.4

A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

75 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
MTL
36 shots
3
Final
75 shots
BUF
39 shots
5
MTL attackBUF attack
MTL BUF Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — MTL left, BUF right — the way you would watch it. A dot's size is how dangerous the look was, from distance and angle; it is a proxy for shot quality, not the xG model the article is written from. Hover a dot for the shooter and the clock.

Ranked from the box score

Three stars

Points first
Three stars · computed, not voted
T. Thompson
#72 · C · BUF
3 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 20:43 on ice · +2
L. Hutson
#48 · D · MTL
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 25:55 on ice · -1
N. Suzuki
#14 · C · MTL
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 22:17 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Jan 15
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:51 AMEdited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

The pregame model offers no favors here: Montreal-Buffalo projects to a 2.5–2.7 expected goal spread with Buffalo holding 54% win probability. That's a pick'em.

The advanced stats explain why. Montreal owns 48.0% 5v5 expected goals and 49.0% Corsi; Buffalo counters with 50.0% xG% and the same 49.0% Corsi%. No team has established clear territorial dominance.

Both offenses, though, are running hotter than the underlying metrics suggest. Montreal's PDO sits at 1.018; Buffalo's at 1.020. When shooting percentage and save percentage both exceed their natural averages, regression is the house edge. Expect some evening out here.

S. Montembeault will draw scrutiny on the back-to-back: watch for Montreal to pivot to a backup, or for Montembeault to show fatigue in the third.

For Montreal, Cole Caufield commands the most attention. His 0.97 expected goals per 60 minutes would rank among league leaders; he's converted that pace into 33 goals with just 1 high-danger goal, suggesting he's scoring on lower-quality chances at a 20.0% clip—which is sustainable but unsustainable in a regression season. Oliver Kapanen trails in xG/60 (0.83) but has four high-danger goals to Caufield's one, a sign his offense lives closer to where the danger actually is.

Buffalo's scoring mirrors Montreal's imbalance. Jason Zucker generates 1.07 xG/60 and has buried 6 of his 14 goals from high-danger spots, meaning he's getting prime real estate. Josh Doan's 1.01 xG/60 has yielded 15 goals but just 2 high-danger tallies—a shooting rate unsupported by high-danger creation.

Defensively, Montreal's Mike Matheson and Buffalo's Jack Quinn are the identified weak links in transition. Whichever team can isolate and exploit their opposing weak link will inch toward the 54% figure in their favor.

This is the narrowest of margins: two evenly matched teams, both running hot, both vulnerable to regression.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

BUF 54%
54%
BUF
Model favorite
46%
54%
MTL50BUF

BUF by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score MTL 2.5–2.7 BUF; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season rates · 5v5

Tale of the tape

NHL stats API · our xG
MTL← edge
edge →BUF
48.0%50.0%
49.0%49.0%
2.412.55
2.622.55
2.242.35
1.961.90
1.0181.020

BUF holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.018 vs 1.020) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
MTL
6-2-2
+6 GD · 1d rest
BUF
8-2-0
+13 GD · 2d rest
1.018
MTL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.020
BUF PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • S. Montembeault is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
MTL
Expected in goal
S. Montembeault
back-to-back.929 last start
Backup Jakub Dobes · +17.3 GSAx this season
Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

No completed game on file for this club yet.

BUF
Expected in goal
C. Ellis
2 days rest.903 last start
Backup Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen · +10.5 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

Lineups are the players who dressed in each club's last game, with their minutes; clubs confirm tonight's at warm-up. Every player this preview names was in that lineup.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
MTL
Cole Caufield33G 16A
0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh
Oliver Kapanen19G 12A
0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% sh
BUF
Jason Zucker14G 14A
1.07 xG/60 · 6 HD · 15.1% sh
Josh Doan15G 18A
1.01 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.5% sh
Keep going

Where to next